An argument for keeping Gates at the Pentagon

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm still not terribly thrilled about the prospect of Obama keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon -- I expressed my displeasure here and here -- but, like Creature, I'm just not all that angry about it. The arguments against it, some of which I noted in my posts, are still valid, but I do concede that there is a good argument for it -- and it comes from Slate's Fred Kaplan, hardly a right-wing wacko, who calls Gates, assuming "the reports are true," "an excellent choice" and Obama's "move... a stroke of brilliance -- politically and substantively."

First, he is good for the military and for national security:

In his nearly two years at the helm of the Pentagon, Gates has delivered a series of speeches on the future direction of military policy. He has urged officers to recognize the shift in the face of warfare from the World War II legacy of titanic armored battles between comparably mighty foes to the modern reality of small shadow wars against terrorists and insurgents.

More than that, he has called for systematic adjustments to this new reality: canceling weapons systems that aren't suited to these kinds of wars and building more weapons that are; reforming the promotion boards to reward and advance the creative officers who have proved most adept at this style of warfare; rethinking the roles and missions of the individual branches of the armed services; siphoning some of the military's missions, especially those dealing with "nation building," to civilian agencies.

Second, he won't "take his reappointment as a mandate for autonomy" or otherwise challenge Obama authority:

Gates is not the freelancing type. Though hardly a passive servant, he spent most of his career as a staff officer. Even as secretary of defense, he has constantly been aware -- and has emphasized many times, in public and private -- that the president is the decider.

Basically, then, if Obama wants Gates, and thinks he can work with him (just he apparently thinks he can work with Hillary), fine. Perhaps we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt -- which is what I have done throughout the campaign (over FISA, for example) and the transition (over Lieberman, for example) whenever I have found myself in serious disagreement with him. Is it stupid to do so? Maybe. But, then, maybe Gates is the right man to reform the military and to extricate the U.S. from Iraq (and to shift the focus back to Afghanistan).

Maybe.

I still don't buy it -- is there no Democrat who could do the job just as well, if not better? are we sure that Gates, not to mention his far more ideological subordinates, will accede to Obama's authority? what if Obama succumbs to Gates's influence and shifts further to the right, abandoning his commitment to withdraw from Iraq and ramping up the war in Afghanistan with no exit plan in sight? -- but I suppose it's a compelling possibility.

Maybe Obama and Gates will prove their doubters wrong. As for me, I just can't quite overcome my doubt.